It's not just us living on borrowed time...

[Elsie N]

Question for you guys.

What is your interpretation of the term "environmentalists" ?

I'll go first... it is someone or some organization with a single goal of saving x life form or land form at the expense of all others involved. These are the entities IMO who don't have it all figured out. There are many others who have the same goals who take into account all who are involved and I believe these are the ones who are more successful. Theirs is not a zero-sum approach to the problem.

Let me give you an example of the zero-sumers... I saw this on one of the network magazine shows (vague memory has John Quinones as the host) where a woman with a mission was trying to stop an exotic game ranch in Texas from conducting shoots for money.

Even after it was explained that the business model supplied the funds to raise more and more of these animals and in fact was instrumental in re-introducing the excess back into Africa. Not only that, it was a repository for the genetic diversity of the animals (like some sort of gazelle, primarily) that were becoming endangered in Africa.

At the end of the program and after being apprised of these benefits, the environmentalist did not waver in her stance because she saw the hunting as being cruel.

I can't offer an example of the ones who do more good than bad because I haven't delved into any of them or heard or read any audit of their performance.

 

[Marc Thorpe]

Question for you guys.

What is your interpretation of the term "environmentalists" ?

I think that would be a better question posed to those who automatically assume that often self accredited title gives them the authority to attack any potential fiscal solution to conservation. As much as it pains some people it makes sense to place a price on the head of a crippled, demented and full life term Rhino. If some old fart is willing to offer US$300k to head out to Africa to 'hunt' and cull that animal the fiscal benefit to the overall conservation of that species is huge. Some would say that these actions don't benefit the local population. Uhh, well who are the guides, the drivers, the Lodge staff who feed, clean and service the hunters presence in Africa? All from the local community. Without that guy, and others like him, there wouldn't be that revenue, those salaries paid, that inversion of funds to the lodge who then contribute to conservation measures for remaining healthy populations.

The standard 'environmentalist' in our midst doesn't see that. We live in a World of 'isms' and in my view there is a very fine line between 'environmentalism' and 'fanaticism'. We must have the fortitude of character and vision to accept all measures if the long term benefit pushes the balance towards a positive future, irrespective to the meandering of the path to get there. Conservation funds have to come from somewhere, and if you go to any public forum you will find so many organisations bleating for donations (much of which go on bloated salaries, marketing and convention presence) but immediately attacking legal hunts and species population control.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Ok guys, thanks for the answers.

Now let's compare notes.

I worked in a couple of projects directly with people actively involved in protection of the environment, with the organization you probably have heard of, and I saw no fanaticism but expertise. I saw no irrationality but completely the opposite and much greater awareness and responsibility. Manifested not just in focusing on the problems but the solutions, basing routes not just on desires but long term research and analysis.

And no, they don't tend to stomp over oranges to protect the apples. Those who do are however more likely to reach the corporate owned media to be presented to public's eye, than those investing their lives on caring for the biosphere of this planet. And by that messing up the corporate policies and profit projections of those who don't give a shit about anything but figures and function through a parasitic principle.

So I wouldn't suggest generalizing and judging things based on what you see on TV. Intellectuals are of course geeks with poor taste and no life and "environmentalists" tree hugging irrational fanatic bums. Or so some want you to think by creating fictional categories for people and character assassination profiling propaganda.

 

[Marc Thorpe]

Ok guys, thanks for the answers.

Now let's compare notes.

I worked in a couple of projects .....

Cool, I base my opinion on real life experience over the past 20+ years.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Cool, I base my opinion on real life experience over the past 20+ years.

That's great.
So how does generalization and profiling help in saving that elephant ?

Fanaticism exists in all segments of society, from religious over political to sport to celebs to gear and to this domain and "all other cameras suck" mentality.

I just wrote I had completely different impression directly working with people who don't just hold banners or yell "save this and that" clueless about anything else and actually have some background in the matter and achieve something, so not sure what is your point.

 

[Elsie N]

Ok guys, thanks for the answers.

Now let's compare notes.

I worked in a couple of projects directly with people actively involved in protection of the environment, with the organization you probably have heard of, and I saw no fanaticism but expertise. I saw no irrationality but completely the opposite and much greater awareness and responsibility. Manifested not just in focusing on the problems but the solutions, basing routes not just on desires but long term research and analysis.

And no, they don't tend to stomp over oranges to protect the apples. Those who do are however more likely to reach the corporate owned media to be presented to public's eye, than those investing their lives on caring for the biosphere of this planet. And by that messing up the corporate policies and profit projections of those who don't give a shit about anything but figures and function through a parasitic principle.

So I wouldn't suggest generalizing and judging things based on what you see on TV. Intellectuals are of course geeks with poor taste and no life and "environmentalists" tree hugging irrational fanatic bums. Or so some want you to think by creating fictional categories for people and character assassination profiling propaganda.

Sorry, I don't have time or the inclination to run around the earth gaining first hand knowledge of how each and every organization works, so I have to rely on TV and yes, even the Internet and its forums like this one and this thread... to contribute to my knowledge base. '-)

 

[a whitmer]

There are 7 billion people on this earth, and counting. Until that changes, or at least slows dramatically, then the elephant (and gorilla, rhino, tigers, etc) are doomed. Not that we couldn't come up with a plan to produce enough food and space for all to thrive. we could.

But we won't. Not ever.

The entire universe it made up of two things, and two things only: creation and destruction. All the matter and dark matter and black holes and quantum whatever is merely a means to an end. Things are created, and thing are destroyed to make room for new things. And so it has been since the beginning if time.

Humans, in all their wisdom, could find a way to err on the side of creation, and save what we have left - or at least the ones we seem directly responsible for. But other than a precious few that manage to save one or two, the rest of us either won't bother, or will contribute fully to the destruction - because there is money and power in doing so, and that remains the biggest and most sought-after aphrodisiac. When the elephants (ivory) are all gone, they will turn their attentions to the next big payday. Always.

There is zero empathy for the victims, the damage, the suffering. Not now, not ever. (I'm a writer, so I make it my business to get inside the heads of all kinds of people - and animals. You wouldn't want to see what I see in my dreams, my imaginations, and in my intoxications).

Those places that can afford (program funding) to at least try and make a difference, raise awareness and so on, are up against enormous odds, against armies upon armies of those who just don't give a shit. Corruption is the rule, not the exception. And with no end in sight.

Education is a bit of an arrogant approach. When you are dirt poor with zero hope for the future, a chunk of ivory is very atttractive. Screw the elephant. When two or three dirt-poor les misérables start doing it, you can bet some whore of satan will jump in and want their cut. They will organize these miserables into a killing machine. THEY will be the ones doing the educating. And they will make absolutlely sure the government - or any do-gooder foundation or club or people-who-give-a-shit without borders never have the chance to spread hope, or offer alternatives that could sustain them and their families. That's really bad for business.

When the elephants are gone, they will sell something else - rhino horns, gorilla hands for ashtrays, children for sex, terror, oil, lumber, rare fish, plants you can smoke, plants you can shoot, roots you can grind, and on down the line until the earth is as barren as Mars.

I just don't think we can breed out greed and destruction. The instant glory is far too attractive. Trying to 're-educate' the peasantry will fix nothing. Raising awareness will change nothing.

Time to re-evaluate just where the problem begins. We are fighting the wrong fight, and the elephant killers are having a good laugh about it.

My opinion, as always.

alex



Lots of short screenplays free to good homes. Give a shout if interested!

 

[Marc Thorpe]

Sad but true. Nothing is going to, or can, change the juggernaut of human population growth and the needs, and greeds, that stem from it.

 

[Elsie N]

Sad but true. Nothing is going to, or can, change the juggernaut of human population growth and the needs, and greeds, that stem from it.

I have a different perception. We've seen (or think we've seen) the relative sudden extinction of the dinosaurs and I think earth's population density can just as easily be thinned out, although I do think our species would survive.

We've also seen how the emergence of the Zika virus has put people on edge and will likely show up in diminished births during the time of its being in the public awareness. Even Catholics are opting to practice birth control I'll wager.

Not only that, but I believe third world countries will opt to have fewer offspring as they become more tech savvy and thus have less need for family laborers.

Japan is already concerned about negative population growth and China has been conditioned to a one child policy, although that has been changed I think. Some countries in Europe are also experiencing lower birth rates.

Third world countries are the key... along with getting away from the dependence on consumerism in the rest of the world.

 

[Marc Thorpe]

Not only that, but I believe third world countries will opt to have fewer offspring as they become more tech savvy and thus have less need for family labourers.

I don't see that. Population growth amongst the impoverished communities whether on African plains, Indian Mountains or Javanese cities is down to two simple factors, boredom and the numbers game. I can't see it being tied to the successes of the country as a whole. Having lived in Indonesia for a number of years it's the main understanding that if one has enough kids maybe just one of them will grow into an entity with the ability, educational or entrepreneurial, to provide for the rest. That one of them will break free from the cycle of poverty of their family. Indonesia being one of the emerging tech hubs in Asia is controlled by the powerful few, none of whom are willing to allow benefits seep down to their perceived lowest rungs of society.

I've visited some of the most impoverished regions of Indonesia during the filming of a shark and manta ray awareness film over the past few years. The conditions these families live under would make anyone shudder, it seems Indonesia prefers to keep it that way in order to reduce any potential for discord that unified groups and communities may instill. Keep the masses impoverished is to keep them silent, subservient and easily controlled.

 

[Elsie N]

I don't see that. Population growth amongst the impoverished communities whether on African plains, Indian Mountains or Javanese cities is down to two simple factors, boredom and the numbers game. I can't see it being tied to the successes of the country as a whole. Having lived in Indonesia for a number of years it's the main understanding that if one has enough kids maybe just one of them will grow into an entity with the ability, educational or entrepreneurial, to provide for the rest. That one of them will break free from the cycle of poverty of their family. Indonesia being one of the emerging tech hubs in Asia is controlled by the powerful few, none of whom are willing to allow benefits seep down to their perceived lowest rungs of society.

I've visited some of the most impoverished regions of Indonesia during the filming of a shark and manta ray awareness film over the past few years. The conditions these families live under would make anyone shudder, it seems Indonesia prefers to keep it that way in order to reduce any potential for discord that unified groups and communities may instill. Keep the masses impoverished is to keep them silent, subservient and easily controlled.

Interesting observation of a small sample size.

in a likewise small sample size, I'm partially basing my observations on the Mexican American community here in the Southwestern U.S. who are having two children families as they progress financially. Some of the really poor still have larger families simply because they can get more freebies with more children.

 

[Marc Thorpe]

Some of the really poor still have larger families simply because they can get more freebies with more children.

There it is right there. As a country advances technologically there will be less need for a labour force, giving more and more people the task of simply existing. With no salary as such, and way more time on their hands, the onus will be to enlarge the families in order to recuperate greater social benefits, in countries that have such a system in place that is. In areas without such social safety nets the perpetuity of the 'numbers game' for the reasons as mentioned I feel will simply grow exponentially.

 

[Scot Yount]

Too many gene pools missing deep ends...

This. Actually....

 

[a whitmer]

it's the main understanding that if one has enough kids maybe just one of them will grow into an entity with the ability, educational or entrepreneurial, to provide for the rest. That one of them will break free from the cycle of poverty of their family.

I spent quite a bit of time in the Philippines, and it was the same approach. 5, even 7 kids and more. All working to get at least one a university education (which was not a guarantee to break the cycle). The parents would more or less sacrifice the education of the other children - putting them to work in any menial task they could do to help pay for one university tuition, books, etc. It's what worked for them, because like your example, the money and wealth was in the hands of a very few, and that is where it will stay. Keep the workers hungry, and they will always show up for work, and for any amount of pay.

The idea of conservation is not even a crumb in most of their realities. Save the tigers? What about us?

I think we will see a return to the feudal system - we're already half way there? - and when the 1% of the planet's big cheese own all the animals in the world, only then will they make it crime to kill them.

Till then it's a money and numbers game, with the elephants 3, poachers 10.

alex



Lots of short screenplays free to good homes. Give a shout if interested!

 

[Marc Thorpe]

I think we will see a return to the feudal system - we're already half way there? - and when the 1% of the planet's big cheese own all the animals in the world, only then will they make it crime to kill them.

Indeed. Without naming names there is an entity in Indonesian 'politics' who has massive sway within the social elite basically because he is one of the leading crime figures in the country. He own's half of Bali as well as huge tracts of lands throughout the country. One area in particular in SE Sumatra is a model area of conservation where no-one, poacher nor illegal logger, dare to tread through fear of retribution from the 'associates' of this guy. That and the fact that he relocates problem Tigers from throughout Sumatra and Java to this region, Tigers for example that got a taste for human (remains) after the disastrous New Years Day Tsunami that pounded the Aceh region a few years back. The forests in what is existentially his National Park are some of the most stunning in the whole of Indonesia, alas they cover a mere speck of their previous terrain.

 

[paulherrin]

we could make some protest hats for all these getting swallowed in the belly of the beast...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Sad but true. Nothing is going to, or can, change the juggernaut of human population growth and the needs, and greeds, that stem from it.

Nature has a few safety mechanisms.
Milder one is disease. Tougher one is epidemic.

Last resort is a reset button.
Manifested through a cataclysm.

 

[a whitmer]

Nature has a few safety mechanisms.
Milder one is disease. Tougher one is epidemic.

Last resort is a reset button.
Manifested through a cataclysm.

I guarantee someone will find a way to turn the safety mechanism into a lucrative black market business, and skim the cream for themselves.

'Oh, look. People are dying! I can cash in on this! And will someone please get that F'n elephant out of here!


There is no safety mechanism. If only two people survive, one will be an asshole.

a



Lots of short screenplays free to good homes. Give a shout if interested!

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I guarantee someone will find a way to turn the safety mechanism into a lucrative black market business, and skim the cream for themselves.

'Oh, look. People are dying! I can cash in on this!

Already happened.

No need for black market.

http://www.pmlive.com/top_pharma_list/global_revenues?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=2&#.V87LTlBBvqA

Though it went a bit further than that.



Welcome to the future.





...

 

[Marc Thorpe]

There is no safety mechanism. If only two people survive, one will be an asshole.

Very true.